Comments Thread For: Split decisions and statistical significance: why the outlier judge isn?t always wrong

[BoxingUpdates]

Despite how it is treated by the TV analysts or all the Twitter soldiers chiming in from their mom?s basement, being the outlier doesn?t automatically mean you got it wrong. Yet, the judge on the short side of the decision is often seen as being off. Some professionals even grade judges on how often they are in the majority.
[Click Here To Read More]

[SouthpawRight]

so there a blindside without a judge

Judges sit at three different ringside positions, each with a unique view.

[CPNUTKnockoutFreshMart]

Good article , thanks Mr.Schreck !

[landotter]

It is never when one judge differs with the other two judges that people get upset. Judges have differing angles from different parts of the ring, often have have a portion of the action blocked by the angle of the fighters or the referee, and often have a different set of criteria than others (like some judges prefer clean punches over aggression, some vice versa). It is when one judge is so far off the other two you cannot fathom it. If two out of three judges are seeing a 115-113 fight but a third drops 120 points to one fighter there is no way to reason that out.

I have said for decades and I hold to it: The three judges should be available to the press after fights to answer for their cards in the ring of public opinion. Enough sheltering them. This is not top secret governmental level stuff. This is sports, and the judges should be held accountable.